Was There Confession In "Blazing Car” Case?

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 5603, 18 March 1931, Page 7

Was There Confession In "Blazing Car” Case?

HOME SECRETARY’S STATEMENT. United Press Association!—By Electrie Telegraph.—Copyright. LONDON, March 16: Mr. J. R. Clynes, Home Secretary, stated in the House of Commons today that he was satisfied, after searching enquiries, that no confession by Alfred Rouse, who was executed last week, had been passed out of prison by any official. It was most unlikely that it had been passed out by anyone else. Mr -Gardner (Labour): Certain newspapers claimed that definite information concerning the confession came from the prison. Mr Clynes: I cannot answer for tho resources and inventiveness of the Press. He said that he had no power to prohibit the publication of such sensational and erroneous information. There was a firmly-established practice against the publication officially of such confessions. No official information concerning Rouse’s last hours was given out. they would drive business away from the Post Office. He condemned the action of the Government in adding, almost a million sterling to taxation f without consulting the House. After further criticising the GovernI ment’s proposals, Mr. Holland said he hoped it would make no attempt to prolong the life of the present Parliament. There was no justification for any such line of action. That course had been followed during the -war and had meant that the Parliament which should have expired by effluxion of time in 1917 had been, extended until 1919. The position was far worse today, since the conditions did not justify an extension of the term of the present Government. Of course, a fusion of the two Conservative elements was possible and the Government might survive a little longer. It would, in fact, lie better if there were a fusion with Labour in Opposition. It would be better still to have the Labour party on the Treasury benches with the other sections in Opposition. Mr. Holland declared that the House was entitled to a statement from the Prime Minister concerning his proposals before the debate concluded.' A division was taken on Mr. McKcen’s amendment at 5.55 a.m. and it was defeated by 37 votes to 20. The Unemployment Act. Continuing tho debate on the original motion, Mr. Fraser criticised the administration of the Unemployment Act. He claimed there had been no indication in the speeches of Government members when the Bill was before the House that there would be repudiation of the principle of sustenance when no work could be provided. Referring to fusion, he said it would be better if the United and Reform parties got together and discontinued the sham fight. The Finance Bill. The motion for tho Address-in-Reply was adopted at 6.30 and a Finance Bill dealing with the reduction in civil servants’ salaries and the powers of the Arbitration Court was introduced by Governor-General’s message. Speaking on the question whether the Bill should be referred to a Committee consisting of the whole House, the Prime Minister said he had no dcsiro to facilitate any stage of the Bill, not even that stage. There was no necessity to ask what it contained because the Prime Minister’s proposals were already known to everyoue.

Labour members called for a divi sion.

Mr. Forbes said he only desired that the Bill be referred back to the House and read a first time so that it could be printed and circulated among members.

The motion was adopted by 38 votes to 20 and the Bill was read a first time, Labour members forcing a division at all stages.

Replying to the Leader of the Opposition, Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates, Mr. Forbes said he would introduce taxation measures after the House had disposed of tho earthquake legislation.